before the haryana electricity regulatory...
TRANSCRIPT
1
BEFORE THE HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION BAYS No. 33-36, SECTOR-4, PANCHKULA- 134112, HARYANA
Case No. HERC/PRO – 2 of 2019
DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2019
DATE OF ORDER : 17.12.2019 IN THE MATTER OF:
Appeal under Regulation 53 of the Haryana Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Terms and Conditions for Grant of Connectivity and Open
Access for Intra-State Transmission and Distribution System)
Regulations, 2012 and other enabling provisions against decision
awarded by the Coordination Committee conveyed vide memo no. Ch-
23/STU/OA-729/Vol.1 dated 31.10.2018 in case no. 33/ISB-486
received on 05.12.2018.
Petitioner M/s. Faridabad Industries Association (FIA)
Respondents 1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (DHBVNL)
2. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) 3. SE/STU, The Coordination Committee for Open Access
Present On behalf of the Petitioner
1. Sh. R. K. Jain, Advisor
Present On behalf of the Respondents
1. Sh. Samir Malik, Advocate for DHBVNL
2. Ms. Nitika Choukse, Advocate for DHBVNL
3. Shri Ravi Sher Singh, SE/STU, HVPNL
4. Shri Pankaj Singhal, XEN., HVPNL, Open Access & Commercial
5. Shri Pushpendra Singh, XEN., HVPNL, Open Access & Commercial
6. Shri Arun Kumar, Sr. A.O., DHBVNL, Open Access
7. Shri Pardeep Dhull, AE/SO, DHBVNL
QUORUM
Shri D.S. Dhesi, Chairman
Shri Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Member Shri Naresh Sardana, Member
ORDER
1. This Petition has been filed by M/s. Faridabad Industries Association,
challenging the order dated 31.10.2018, passed the Coordination
Committee for Open Access, set up under the provisions of HERC (Terms
2
& Conditions for grant of connectivity and open access for intra-State
transmission and distribution system) Regulations, 2012 as amended
from time to time (hereinafter referred to as “HERC OA Regulations”),
holding that DHBVNL was right in recovering the amount
refunded/adjusted to the open access consumer for a period of two
years, because the Petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions
specified in Regulation no. 42 & 45 of HERC (Terms & Conditions for
grant of connectivity and open access for intra-State transmission and
distribution system) Regulations, 2012 and its subsequent amendment,
as it was mandatory for the consumer to submit to the distribution
licensee a schedule of power required through open access to the
licensee by 10.00 AM of the day preceding the day of transaction.
Brief Background of the Case
Succinctly the facts leading to the filing of present petition are that the
petitioner had challenged the following demand raised by the DHBVNL,
in various months from Dec., 2015 to Oct., 2016, for the units
purchased during the period from Dec 2013 to Jan., 2015, through Open
Access, after being pointed out by its Audit Wing about the fact that the
procedure of Open Access prescribed under Regulation 42 and 45 of
HERC OA Regulations, 2012, laying down the condition of the prior
intimation to DHBVNL of the power he intended to bring through Open
Access, was not followed.
Name of consumer Date of notice Period of debit Debit Amount
Oswal Global 03.12.15 12/13 to 12/14 5,23,786.00 Vishwakarma Ltd. 03.12.15 -do- 6,14,932.69 B.S.L. Castings 01.12.15 -do- 1,20,80,601.00 Ramco Steels Ltd. 03.12.15 -do- 13,71,261.75 Escorts Ltd., Plant I 10.12.15 -do- 38,05,790.63 New Allenberry Works 29.10.15 -do- 32,56,109.00 Sadhu Forging Ltd. 10.12.15 -do- 7,91,609.00 Sadhu Forging (Unit II) 10.12.15 -do- 27,75,815,05 Sadhu Forging (Gear Divn.) 10.12.15 -do- 74,02,574.86 STL Global Ltd. 19.11.15 -do- 20,31,828.00 Star Wire India Ltd. 30.11.15 -do- 1,30,57,919.85 Star Wire India Ltd. 13.11.15 -do- 81,06,138.18 Studds Accessories Ltd. 01.03.16 -do- 51,56,216.00 Super Alloy Castings. 24.10.16 -do- 45,01.060.00 Agrawal Metal Works 18.02.16 -do- 61,67,920.00 Venus Industrial Corp. 06.04.16 -do- 6,34,312.37
3
The Petitioner challenged the above order submitting that it had
approached the following forum/authorities, prior to filing of this
petition:-
a) HERC (HERC/PRO-14 of 2017): The Commission in its Order dated
21.03.2017 conveyed, vide letter no. 2201-2203/HERC/Tariff, as under:-
“Since a coordination committee has been notified by the Power Utility,
vide circular dated 27.02.2012 issued by the Chief Engineer/SO &
Commercial, HVPN, Panchkula, therefore, the present matter is not
maintainable before the Commission being pre-mature at this stage and
the petitioner may approach the coordination committee for their
grievances.”
b) HERC (HERC/RA-2 of 2017): The Commission, vide its Order dated
29.08.2017 decided as under:-
“Hence, given the limited scope of review jurisdiction and without going
into the merits of the issues presented in the review Petition, it is observed
that the submissions of the petitioner would clearly fall outside the review
jurisdiction of the Commission. Accordingly, it is not open for the petitioner
to re urge the issue(s) that have already been dealt with by the
Commission while passing the Order dated 21.03.2017against which the
present review petition had been preferred by the petitioner. The Petitioner
is directed to approach the correct forum constituted for the purpose under
the Regulations for resolution of their grievances, which shall after
carefully examining the relevant facts/documents, however voluminous in
nature, decide the matter. In case the Petitioner still feels aggrieved by the
decision of the ibid Commission, it may approach the Commission with an
appropriate petition.”
c) Coordination Committee: The Petitioner filed an appeal before the
Coordination Committee for Open Access, HVPNL. The Coordination
Committee vide its order dated 31.10.2018, decided as under:-
“After taking into consideration the written submissions of the petitioner
and respondents and hearing of the matter on dated 22.11.2017 &
24.04.2018, the Committee has observed as under:-
1. It is statutory requirement that the consumer shall submit to the
distribution licensee a schedule of power required through Open
4
Access to the Licensee by 10:00 AM of the day preceding the day of
transaction which is affirmative in terms of the clause no. 42 & 45
Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation (Terms and
conditions for grant of connectivity and open access for intra-State
transmission and distribution system) Regulations, 2012.
2. The HERC during notification of 1st Amendment, Regulation 2013
of HERC (Terms and conditions for grant of connectivity and open
access for intra-State transmission and distribution system)
Regulations, 2012 also takes cognizance of the concern of DISCOMs
that it is difficult for distribution licensees to plan and manage their
drawl from the grid along with load control in a cost effective manner
unless a confirmed schedule of Power through Open Access tied up for
the next day by the Open Access consumers is made available to
DISCOMs (Distribution Licensee) sufficiently in advance.
3. The delay in submission of day ahead schedule of Power through
Open Access by petitioner results DISCOMs with less time and not in a
position to take any corrective measures to affect alterations in its own
schedule for surrendering any surplus power or for arranging more
power in case of any shortfall as by that time the bids/schedules for
energy drawl of DISCOMs would have been approved by the Power
Exchange/RLDC. The result is that they invariably are forced to under
draw/overdraw or impose avoidable power cuts leading to financial
losses and consequent additional burden for other consumers of the
State due to actions of the Open Access consumers. That it would not
be fair and justifiable if any losses of the licensee on account of energy
transaction by Open Access consumer get passed on directly or
indirectly to other consumers of the State. The Hon’ble Commission,
after careful consideration of these aspects, has prescribed certain
additional conditions for grant of Open Access and the foremost among
these additional conditions is that for the day ahead transactions, the
open access Consumers shall submit a confirmed slot wise schedule of
power through open access and from the licensee and SLDC. In case
there are any reductions in consumers, Open Access schedule when it
is finally accepted/cleared by the Power Exchange, the consumer
5
would be required to manage his drawl from the licensee and also his
total drawl accordingly. In case he exceeds his admissible drawl in
any time slot, penalty will be leviable. The principle that has been
based upon to arrive at these conclusions is simple i.e. in case a
consumer wants to avail the benefit of cheaper power, he should also
be ready to face the associated risks thereon, if any.
4. This is also substantiated from the fact that in case of under drawl
of power by an open access consumer due to reasons attributable to
him and within his control shall be compensated only to the extent of
10% of the entitled drawl in a time slot or up to 5% of the entitled
drawl on aggregate basis for all the 96 time slots in a day and no
compensation shall be payable by the distribution licensee for under
drawl beyond these limits. This speaks of the importance of the
discipline of the part of the open access consumers with an overall aim
to maintain the grid security, discipline and also to save the
distribution licensee from the losses on account of un-planned
purchase of power, sale of surplus power at UI rates thereby
burdening the consumers of the State as the power purchase expenses
of the distribution licensee is a pass through expense in the ARR as
per HERC MYT Regulations, 2012.”
2. Aggrieved with the order of the Coordination Committee, the Appellant
has filed by the present appeal before this Commission challenging the
impugned order on the following grounds:-
a) That the Petitioner continued to enjoy the open access facility for over a
year or so i.e. during the period of December 2013 to January 2015.
b) That in December 2015 i.e. after a lapse of over 2 years, Respondent
No.1 (DHBVN) for the first time sent notice to some of the Open Access
Consumers, stating as under:-
“The A/c of your connection was audited by Sr. AO/Open Access DHBVN,
Hisar for the month of Dec. 2013 to Jan. 2015 & short assessment pointed
out for Rs. ……. So, you are requested to deposit the same failing which
action will be taken as per Nigam’s instructions.”
c) That as per the Regulations, the grant of open access involves the
following steps/actions:-
6
i) The consumer seeking inter-State or intra-State short term open
access has to submit application to the Nodal Agency may be for a
period up to fourth month and the month in which the application
is made shall be considered to be the first month. Separate
application is to be made for each month and for each transaction in
a month;
ii) A copy of the above application is to be furnished to the distribution
licensee of his area of supply by the consumer intending to avail
intra-State short term open access;
iii) Nodal Agency has to obtain consent from the Distribution Licensee
as to the existence of infrastructure necessary for time-block-wise
metering and accounting and availability of required capacity in the
transmission & distribution system; (Therefore, the distribution
licensee is fully aware, minimum a month in advance, about the
quantum and time period when the consumer intends to avail open
access facility to purchase power from a source other than the
Utility.)
iv) The Nodal Agency (HVPN) gives ‘Standing Clearance’/No Objection
Certificate’ in Format PX-I for each of the open access consumer
over one moth in advance to the consumer with copy to the
Transmission and Distribution Licensees. (Again the Distribution
Licensee comes to know about power to be purchased by the
consumer through open access.)
v) The consumer submits day ahead schedule of power to be drawn
from Power Exchange through open access by 10:00 AM of the
previous day and he has to deposit the cost of this power with Power
Exchange in advance, irrespective of his bid for power purchase
being successful or not by the evening hours.
vi) By 3 PM the Power Exchange conveys to the consumer and the
SLDC/Distribution Licensee about the accepted schedule for the
next day. However, the responsibility of the Distribution Licensee to
make available power to the consumer ends once the bid is
submitted. The Distribution Licensee gets all this information from
the Energy Centre on monthly basis.
7
vii) The Power Controller office of the Distribution Licensee sends daily
message to the substation feeding the open access consumer about
the open access power scheduled for each day with instructions not
to disconnect the feeder of the open access consumers. (This is
ample proof that the Distribution Licensee is aware about the
accepted schedule of the open access consumer much in advance.)
viii) The open access consumer sends a soft copy of the open access
meter data (downloaded through CMRI) for each month to the
concerned office of the Distribution Licensee and the Licensee
prepares monthly bill on this data. (In case the Distribution
Licensee had any objection to the power drawn through open
access it had ample opportunity to point it out and warn the
consumer.)
ix) At the end of each month, the Energy Centre of HVPN prepares for
each open access consumer the final statement showing energy
drawl as per implemented schedule from Indian Energy Exchange
under 15 minutes time slots by the consumer through open access
and actual metered energy drawl as per SEMs installed, at the
interface. This statement is the basis for settlement of accounts of
the consumer by the Distribution Licensee. (Based on this
statement the Distribution Licensee gives adjustment for the open
access power in the bill of the consumer. The Distribution Licensee
continued giving all these adjustments for over two years i.e. from
Dec\. 2013 to January 2015 without raising any objection to the
scheduling of power or the non-receipt of the schedule for any
particular date.)
d) That the load planning/management is being carried out by the Power
Controller of the Licensees on daily basis, which is purely a procedure of
approximation as it is not possible to exactly assess the power demand
of the State. It is always an estimate which normally fits in 80-90% slab.
With such a large variation in estimates vs actuals, a fraction of impact
of missing schedule of any single consumer will not affect the finances of
the Utility. Thus, the image being projected by the Distribution Licensees
is nothing but a hoax without any supporting facts or data.
8
e) Additional issues relating to the Open Access matter:-
The Petitioner has submitted that in addition to the above issue of
double charging for the power purchased through Open Access there
were two more issues i.e.
(i) Non-refund of UI charges for power failure period or non-
availability of Transmission/ Distribution Systems.
Regulation 24(2)(C) of the HERC Open Access Regulations
25/2012 read with 1st Amendment dated 03.12.2013 reads as
under,:-
(C) Underdrawal of power by an open access consumer due to
reason attributable to the transmission / distribution licensee i.e.
break down of system:
If an open access consumer is unable to draw the scheduled
energy through open access as a result of non-availability of intra-
state distribution/ transmission system or on account of
unscheduled load shedding (to be certified by SLDC), then the
distribution licensee shall pay such open access consumer, for the
under drawl, the charges payable by the consumer to the
generating company/seller or the lowest tariff applicable to the
consumer category, to which such open access consumer belongs,
whichever is lower.
Guidelines for certifying or refusing to certify non-availability of
transmission/distribution system or unscheduled load shedding
shall be framed by the STU and submitted to the Commission for
approval within three months from the date of publication of these
Regulations in the gazette.”
The Respondent Nigam is not providing the necessary UI refund
for the periods when the open access power was not available due
to the reasons attributable to the transmission / distribution
licensee i.e. breakdown of system. Necessary directions may kindly
be given to the Respondent Nigam to settle such refund claims on
priority in line with the provisions under the relevant Regulation
quoted above.
9
(ii) Recovery of UI charges for overdrawing power from the Grid
when open access power is not available due to Real Time
Curtailment imposed by NLDC.
At times the Regional Load Dispatch Centre issues real time
curtailment due to exigencies of the grid, the power scheduled for
the open access consumers is not available to the consumer
during that slot and by the time this curtailment information is
conveyed to the consumer, he has already drawn power from the
grid. Although such over-drawl remains within the sanctioned
contract demand of the consumer but exceeds the entitled quota
from the State Grid. The corrective action to get the power
rescheduled takes minimum 2-3 hours. The open access customer
has to pay twice the tariff for such power while he has already paid
the cost of such power to Power Exchange also. The relevant
Regulation dealing with such charging is Regulation 24(2)(A)(I)(ii)
of the Open Access Regulations 25/2012 read with 1st
Amendment dated 03.12.2013, which provides as under:-
“(2) Imbalance charges applicable for all open access transactions
for the over-drawl /under-drawl by an open access consumer or for
the under injection / over injection by a generator or trader shall be
as given below.
(A) Due to reasons attributable to the open access consumers/
generator/ trader
I. Over drawl by open access consumer / under injection by a
generator or a trader:
(ii) An open access consumer who is a consumer of the distribution
licensee:
(a) During non-peak load hours if the recorded drawl of the
consumer is within his contract demand, no imbalance charges
shall be leviable. When the recorded drawl of the consumer as
per his energy meter exceeds his contract demand by more
than 5% during non-peak load hours, he will be liable to pay
demand surcharge as per the relevant schedule of tariff
approved by the Commission. For the purpose of calculating
demand surcharge in such cases, the total energy drawl during
the month including the energy drawl through open access
shall be considered. The consumption charges for the energy
10
drawl through open access, for the purpose of levy of demand
surcharge, will be worked out at the applicable tariff for the
category to which the consumer belongs.
Provided that in case of day ahead transactions, bilateral as
well as collective, through power exchange or through NRLDC,
by embedded open access consumers, the imbalance charges
for the over drawl during non peak load hours shall be as
provided in regulation 42 hereinafter.
(b) During peak load hours, levy of imbalance charge for any over
drawl beyond peak load exemption/special dispensation
allowed by the distribution licensee and levy of peak load
exemption charges on the power drawn through open access
shall be as provided in regulation 45(3) and 45(4) respectively
hereinafter.
(c) During the period when power cut restrictions are in place and
the feeder of the consumer is kept energized only to enable him
to draw his scheduled entitlement as an open access
consumer, the consumer shall restrict his drawl within his
entitled drawl as per his accepted schedule of power through
open access during such period. In case the recorded drawl of
consumer exceeds his entitled drawl by more than 10% (of the
entitled drawl) in any time slot, his entire over drawl beyond
the entitled drawl during such period would be charged at two
(2) times the applicable tariff. The applicable tariff shall include
FSA and in case power cut restriction period falls within peak
load restriction hours shall also include PLEC.”
That considering the exigency being beyond any reasonable control
of the open access consumer and a force majeure situation, the
charging of twice the normal tariff results in paying three times the
tariff for the consumer. The Commission may consider the matter
favorably and exempt levy of double the normal tariff in such
situations.
Prayer:
3. On the basis of above grounds, the appellant has prayed as under:-
a) Accept the Appeal in the present form;
b) Give suitable directions to the Respondent Nigam to withdraw illegal
claims for the power purchased from Power Exchange and necessary
11
adjustment given in the subsequent energy bills on a flimsy ground of
‘Bid not received’
c) Direct the Respondent Nigam to compensate for the financial loss
caused to the Open access Consumers by way of interest due to
making double the payment for the power purchased from Power
Exchange;
d) Inflict suitable punishment on the defaulting officers of the
Respondent Nigam for harassing the open access consumers by
raising illegal demands after a period of two years by distorting the
provisions under the Regulations notified by the Commission under
Section 142 of the Electricity Act read with the suo moto order passed
by the Commission dated 04.09.2012.
e) Pass suitable order on the timely refund/ payment of UI charges;
f) Pass suitable orders on the refund of UI Charges recovered for
overdrawing power from the grid when open access power is not
available due to real time curtailment imposed by NLDC;
g) Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
Proceedings in the Case
4. The case was first heard by the Commission on 02nd April, 2019. Shri
R.K. Jain appearing for the Petitioner argued at length against the order
passed by Coordination Committee. The learned counsel for the
appellant argued vehemently that the same process continued for a
considerable period of time and the Respondent did not issue even a
single letter/show cause notice pointing out the alleged failure of the
Petitioner and it tantamount to implied waiver of the said condition by
the Respondent. Further, the information regarding the drawl of energy
by the Petitioner through open access was given by the power exchange.
The learned counsel argued that it is arbitrary action on the part of the
Respondent to force a consumer to pay an amount twice on account for
mere procedural irregularity, which has been duly waived by the
Respondent by its inaction and even otherwise has not caused any loss
to the Respondent.
12
5. After hearing the ld. Counsel for the appellant, this Commission
enquired about the possibility of ascertaining the loss incurred by the
Respondent on account of non intimation of schedule by the petitioner as
per the prescribed procedure. The ld. counsel for the respondent pointed
out that this issue was also examined by the Coordination Committee
and in its order, and the Committee has observed that “the exact
calculation of the losses attributable to non-intimation of open access by a
particular consumer and resultant profit and loss for sale of equivalent
power through exchange / UI cannot be worked out owing to the
complexities and pooling of power in the grid”
6. In response to the Interim Order of the Commission, DHBVN filed its
reply pleading therein as under:-
a) That the Ld. Coordination Committee has rightly rejected, the
Petitioner’s prayer regarding refund towards electricity drawn through
open access for the months of December 2013 to December, 2014.
Further, the amount claimed by the Petitioner in its Petition is not
correct and as per the demand letters issues, the following demand has
been raised:-
S. No.
Name of firm
No. of Days for which Sched-ule
was not submitted
Quantum of energy
sourced from OA
Amt. Due to non submiss-
ion of Bids
Other charges i.e. under
drawl/overdrawl charges, open access charges etc.
Total Demand Raised
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 1 M/S Oswal Global 0 0 0 523786 523786
2 M/S Vishwakarma Ltd. 3 23493 133375 958820 1092195
3 M/S BSL Casting 8 286304 1260681 2916218 4176899
4 M/S Remco Steel 9 98514 592069 2001077 2593146
5 M/S Escorts Lt. Plant-1 40 1012747 5995472 1685590 7681062
6 M/S New Allenbary 11 222173 1311536 390710 1702246
7 M/S Sadhu Forging unit-1 6 29762 178869 104684 283553
8 M/S sadhu Forging unit-11 2 22376 125369 1641684 1767053
9 M/S Sadhu Forging Gear Divn. 2 37596 206287 4001496 4207783
10 M/S STL Global 13 157034 943771 1088057 2031828
11 M/S Star Wire India Ltd. 3 243126 1336681 11721238 13057919
12 M/S star Wire India Ltd. Chhainsa
1 46059 267603 7838536 8106139
13 M/S Studds Accessories 19 254019 1496399 1008679 2505078
14 M/S Super Alloy Casting 105 908425 5419521 -918461 4501060
15 M/S Aggarwal Metal Works 17 345296 2075230 4092690 6167920
16 M/S Venus Industrial Corp. 6 28921 164601 37952 202553 Total 6,06,00,220
13
b) That the amount mentioned in the Petition includes both refund of
charges on account of non-submission of day ahead schedule as well as
for other reasons such as charging on account of difference in PLEC,
CSS, Energy Charges etc. Thus, without prejudice to the submissions
contained hereinafter, it is erroneous for the Petitioner to claim
adjustment of the amounts mentioned in the Petition.
c) The Petitioner, during the disputed period, had failed to provide the
information to the Respondent as required under Regulation 42 of HERC
OA Regulations. The information regarding submission/non-submission
of bids sought by the Commission in the prescribed format is annexed.
d) Since the petitioner did not submit the morning schedule, its schedule
become invalid and amount of open access refund granted to the
consumers for the Disputed Period was withdrawn.
e) With respect to the consequences of non-submission of the aforesaid day
ahead schedule, the Respondent had no other option but to take into
account the contract demand of the Petitioner while planning its power
procurement, without deducting the unplanned Open Access Energy
scheduled by the Petitioner. Resultantly, the unplanned energy brought
by the petitioner was wasted. On most of the dates there is under drawl
by the respondent inter alia due to the reasons attributable to the
unplanned energy brought by the petitioner in to the system causing
grid indiscipline. Although underdrawl/overdrawl on account of a
specific individual embedded open access consumer is not possible.
A. When was the mandatory information specified in Regulation 42 of
the OA Regulations provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent?
f) That the Petitioner has admitted during the arguments as well as in the
pleadings filed before this Commission that the Petitioner has not
provided the information to the Respondent in the manner prescribed
under Regulation 42 of OA Regulations. The Petitioner has stated that
the information required under Regulation 42 was not provided by the
Petitioner but was being provided to the Respondent through Energy
Exchange Platforms. In fact, the Petitioner has made extensive
14
submissions contending that Regulation 42 is not a mandatory provision
and its non-compliance does not entail any consequences. Therefore, it
is clear that the Petitioner had not submitted the information as required
under Regulation 42 of the OA Regulations.
B. Whether the procurement of power by the Petitioner through Open
Access was considered in its power procurement planning by the
Respondent.
g) In order to respond to this query, it is imperative to set out the relevant
regulatory background by which the condition as mandated under
Regulation 42 was prescribed. It is submitted that the OA Regulations
was amended on 03.12.2013. By way of the said amendment, Regulation
42 was amended and a mandatory obligation was casted on the
embedded consumer (who were willing to avail short term open access)
to submit to the distribution licensee (the Respondent herein) a schedule
of power through open access for all 96 slots by 10:00 AM of the day
preceding the day of transaction, as under:-
“42. Eligibility criteria, procedure and conditions to be satisfied for grant of
long term open access, medium term open access and short term open
access to embedded consumers shall be same as applicable to other short-
term open access consumers. However, the day-ahead transactions,
bilateral as well as collective through power exchange or through NRLDC,
by embedded open access consumers under short term open access shall
be subject to the following additional terms and conditions:
i) The Consumer shall submit to the distribution licensee a schedule of
power through open access for all the 96 slots by 10:00 AM of the day
preceding the day of transaction and this will be considered as confirmed
schedule for working out the slot-wise admissible drawl of the consumer
from the licensee with reference to his sanctioned contract demand. For
example, if an embedded consumer with a contract demand of 10 MW has
scheduled 4 MW power through open access in any time slot of the
succeeding day as per the schedule submitted by him at 10 AM, then his
admissible drawl from the licensee in that time slot will be 6 MW.
The total admissible drawl in different time – slots shall, however, be
worked out based on slot-wise admissible drawl from the licensee as
15
above and the slot-wise schedule of power through open access accepted
/ cleared by the power exchange and intimated to the SLDC and
distribution licensee by the consumer in compliance of regulation 45. For
example if, as per the schedule for drawl of power through open access
submitted by the consumer at 10 AM of the day preceding the day of
transaction, 4 MW power was scheduled through open access in a time
slot and as per the accepted schedule this gets reduced to 3 MW, then his
admissible total drawl in that time slot shall be 9 MW. i.e. 6 MW from the
licensee and 3 MW through open access.
In case recorded drawl of the consumer in any time slot exceeds his total
admissible drawl but is within 105 % of his contract demand, he will be
liable to pay charges for the excess drawl (beyond admissible drawl) at
twice the applicable tariff including FSA. In case the recorded drawl
exceeds the sanctioned contract demand by more than 5% at any time
during the month as per his energy meter, demand surcharge as per
relevant schedule of tariff approved by the Commission shall also be
leviable. For the purpose of calculating demand surcharge in such cases,
the total energy drawl during the month including the energy drawl
through open access shall be considered. The consumption charges for the
energy drawl through open access, for the purpose of levy of demand
surcharge, will be worked out at the applicable tariff for the category to
which the consumer belongs…”
The reason behind such an amendment has been provided by the
Commission in the above said Regulations itself, as under:-
“The Commission feels that it would not be fair and justifiable if
any losses of the distribution licensee on account of energy
transactions by open access consumers get passed on, directly or
indirectly, to other consumers. The Commission, to address these
problems /difficulties, after a careful consideration of all these
aspects, has prescribed certain additional conditions for grant of
open access in case of day ahead transactions by open access
consumers. The foremost among these additional conditions is
that for day ahead transactions, the open access consumers shall
16
submit a confirmed slot wise schedule of power through open
access and from the licensee for the next day at 10:00 hours of the
previous day to the distribution licensee and SLDC. In case there
are any reductions in his open access schedule when it is finally
accepted / cleared by the power exchange, he would be required to
manage his drawl from the licensee as also his total drawl
accordingly. In case he exceeds his admissible drawl in any time-slot,
penalty will be leviable. Amendments have been made in the relevant
regulations accordingly. The principle that has been based upon to arrive
at these conclusions is simple i.e. in case a consumer wants to avail the
benefit of cheaper power, he should be ready to face the associated risks
also if any.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
As evident from the aforesaid, the Commission acknowledged the
difficulties faced by the distribution licensee if the schedule is not
intimated by the consumers and has accordingly amended the OA
Regulations to include the above mandatory condition. The primary
reasons behind introducing such condition were to introduce systematic
planning and scheduling of the load by the distribution licensees.
The information supplied by the Power Exchange at any point of day
does not constitute as compliance of the mandatory obligation casted on
the Petitioner under the aforesaid regulation. It is further submitted
that:-
i) The contract demand of the Petitioner was considered by the
Respondent in its power procurement as the Respondent is under a
universal service obligation to provide power to consumers within its
licensed area. In the absence of prior intimation to the Respondent, the
Respondent is bound to schedule the entire contract demand for its
consumers;
ii) The Petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own
wrong; and
17
iii) There was no waiver of the conditions prescribed under
Regulation 42 of the OA Regulation as the adjustments have been
claimed well within the time limits prescribed under the Electricity Act.
It has been further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that
where the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner,
then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. The
condition of intimating day-ahead scheduling to the Respondent was
introduced by way of an amendment as the Commission acknowledged
the difficulties being faced by the Respondent when the consumers were
not intimating the schedule. Therefore, the Petitioner by no means can
contend that necessary compliance of Regulation 42 was done as
information was received by the Respondent through power
exchange/SLDC at a later time. The said contention, if accepted, would
defeat the entire purpose of introducing such condition. In this regard,
reliance is placed on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Dipak
Babaria & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 502:-
“53. It is well settled that where the statute provides for a thing
to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that
manner and in no other manner. This proposition of law laid down in
Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch D 426, 431 was first adopted by the Judicial
Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor reported in
MANU/PR/0020/1936 : AIR 1936 PC 253 and then followed by a bench
of three Judges of this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of
Vindhya Pradesh reported in MANU/SC/0053/1954 : AIR 1954 SC 322.
This proposition was further explained in paragraph 8 of State of U.P. v.
Singhara Singh by a bench of three Judges reported in
MANU/SC/0082/1963 : AIR 1964 SC 358 in the following words:
8. The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor is well recognised
and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a
statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid
down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it
necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other
manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle
18
behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory
provision might as well not have been enacted....
This proposition has been later on reiterated in Chandra Kishore Jha v.
Mahavir Prasad reported in MANU/SC/0594/1999: 1999 (8) SCC 266,D
hananjaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka reported in
MANU/SC/0168/2001 : 2001 (4) SCC 9 and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam
Limited v. Essar Power Limited reported in MANU/SC/1055/2008 : 2008
(4) SCC 755.”
[Emphasis supplied]
h) The Petitioner has argued that the Respondent cannot penalize the
Petitioner for not complying with the Regulation 42 as there is no such
penalty prescribed under the Regulation. The said contention of the
Petitioner is liable to be rejected as misconceived. It is reiterated that the
Respondent has not penalized the Petitioner for non-compliance of
Regulation 42, it has just withdrawn the adjustment provided under
Regulation 43. The adjustment can only be availed by a consumer if
such consumer is entitled to draw power through open access in terms
of Regulation 42. As detailed above, if the Petitioner does not intimate
the Respondent of the day ahead schedule then the Respondent has to
bear the charges for un-availed power.
i) The Petitioner has contended that the Respondent can’t be allowed to
claim the adjustments for open access for a period of 11 months which
clearly implies that the Respondent has impliedly waived the condition
as mentioned in Regulation 42. The said contention of the Petitioner is
liable to be rejected as misconceived. In this regard, it has been
submitted that prior to amendment in Regulation 42 of OA Regulations,
concerned SDO’s were doing manual adjustments/refund on basis of
summary sheet provided by nodal agency i.e., HVPNL. However, after the
above amendment was carried out in OA Regulations and in order to
further streamline the process a specialized wing was constituted in the
month of December, 2014 to deal with adjustments/refund for
embedded open access consumers. Thereafter, the OA Wing after
analyzing the data started sending adjustments/refund to the SDO’s
concerned so that same can be adjusted in the account respective open
19
access consumer. The same is evident from the fact that after the
establishment of separate OA wing no discrepancy has been reported till
now and case of the Petitioner pertains to the period from December
2013 to December 2014 i.e. prior to the period when OA Wing was
established.
j) Pertinently, the management in order to analyze and investigate the
previous discrepancies if any, constituted a special team to coordinate
and extract the desired information wherein it was directed to audit/
reconcile the account of all open access consumers w.e.f. December,
2013 to December, 2014. For the aforesaid audit process, a special drive
was carried out to specifically check whether any erroneous adjustments
have been made in addition to preparation of regular UI bills/ refunds. It
was also directed that all adjustments/refunds shall be subject to post
audit by the office of Chief Auditor, DHBVN, Hisar. Accordingly, it was
found that the Petitioner had been in violation of the OA Regulations and
had not informed about the schedule of power through open access
which has ultimately caused loss to the Answering Respondent. The
moment such discrepancy surfaced, the Respondent took active
measures and claimed the erroneous adjustment amount from the
Petitioner. Therefore, there was never a waiver of the conditions
prescribed under the OA Regulations. In any case, the demand has been
raised well within time as prescribed under Section 56 (2) of Electricity
Act, 2003, as under:-
“Section 56 (Disconnection of supply in default of payment): --…(2)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be
recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum
became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as
recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee
shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”
In view of the above provisions, it is submitted that the demand has
been raised by the Answering Respondent within the time limit as
prescribed under the Electricity Act, 2003 and is hence recoverable from
20
the Petitioner. Further, Section 56 would be applicable in the present
case as the money claimed from the Petitioner is not a penalty; it is in
fact the genuine dues for the energy purchased by the Respondent to the
extent of contract demand of the Petitioner. The same has been
demanded from the Petitioner as the Petitioner failed to comply with
Regulation 42 which entitles a consumer to avail open access.
III. The Action taken against the concerned officers.
k) That the erroneous adjustment which was allowed is only attributable to
the fact that at that particular point of time the concerned SDO's lacked
the expertise to deal with such cases and same was done only on the
basis of summary sheet provided by the nodal agency and without
consideration of morning schedule. Further, as explained above it was
only in December 2014 that a special wing was created to deal with open
access related issues. Accordingly, as soon as the discrepancies and
violations surfaced, the Respondent took prompt action and demanded
the refund erroneously made. In any case, the demand has been raised
well within time as prescribed under Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act.
7. The SLDC, vide memo no. Ch-42/ISB-486 dated 23.10.2019 submitted
its reply as sought in the prescribed format providing customer-wise
details of intimation of day ahead schedule.
8. The Petitioner in its reply sought in the prescribed format, submitted the
customer-wise details of intimation of day ahead schedule.
9. The information provided by the Petitioner, SLDC and DHBVNL is
summarized as under:-
a) Aggarwal Metal Works, Rewari
The Petitioner has submitted that the day ahead schedule was not
submitted by 10 AM. However, the schedule was submitted a day earlier
than the prescribed day.
b) BSL Castings Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for three number dates out of eight dates. However, DHBVNL
and SLDC has submitted that the schedule was not received.
c) New Allenberry Works
21
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for one number date out of eleven dates. The fact has also
been acknowledged by DHBVNL & SLDC. On other dates, the schedule
was submitted a day earlier than the prescribed day. SLDC has
submitted that the schedule was duly received by 10 AM on one date
(email dated 28.04.2014) out of eleven dates for which demand has been
raised by DHBVNL.
d) Sadhu Forging Ltd.
The Petitioner has submitted that the day ahead schedule was not
submitted by 10 AM, but it was submitted with delay of few minutes past
10 AM. DHBVNL and SLDC has also acknowledged this fact for four out
of six default days.
e) Sadhu Forging Ltd. (Unit-II)
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for both the dates for which demand has been raised by
DHBVNL. However, DHBVNL has submitted that the schedule was not
received and SLDC has submitted that it was received in one date out of
two, but was received late.
f) Sadhu Forging Ltd. (Gear Division)
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for both the dates for which demand has been raised by
DHBVNL. However, DHBVNL has submitted that the schedule was not
received and SLDC has submitted that it was received in one date out of
two, but was received late. The email evidence submitted by the
Petitioner and SLDC are showing different times.
g) Star Wires (India) Ltd., Ballabhgarh
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM. However, DHBVNL and SLDC has submitted that the schedule
was not received.
h) Star Wires (India) Ltd., Chhainsa
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM. However, DHBVNL and SLDC has submitted that the schedule
was not received.
i) STL Global Limited
22
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for one number date out of thirteen dates. On other dates, the
schedule was submitted late. However, DHBVNL and SLDC has
submitted that it was received late even on this date which is claimed by
the Petitioner as submitted before 10 AM. The email evidence submitted
by the Petitioner and the Respondents are showing different times.
j) Venus Industrial Corporation
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for one number date out of six dates. However, DHBVNL and
SLDC has submitted that the schedule was not received.
k) Super Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner has claimed that the day ahead schedule was submitted
by 10 AM for ninety four number date out of one hundred and five dates.
However, DHBVNL and SLDC has submitted that the schedule was not
received.
l) Studds Accessories Ltd.
No details has been provided by the Petitioner. SLDC has submitted that
the schedule was duly received by 10 AM in two date (email dated
11.01.2014 & 29.03.2014) out of nineteen dates for which demand has
been raised by DHBVNL. However, DHBVNL has submitted that the
schedule was not received.
m) Oswal Global
No details has been provided by the Petitioner, DHBVNL as well as SLDC.
n) Vishwakarma Ltd.
No details has been provided by the Petitioner. SLDC has submitted that
the schedule was duly received by 10 AM in one date (email dated
10.02.2014) out of three dates for which demand has been raised by
DHBVNL. However, DHBVNL has submitted that the schedule was not
received.
o) Ramco Steels
No details has been provided by the Petitioner. However, DHBVNL and
SLDC has submitted that the day ahead schedule, in the manner
provided in the Regulations was not received by 10 AM.
p) Escorts
No details has been provided by the Petitioner. SLDC has submitted that
the schedule was duly received by 10 AM in five dates (email dated
23
14.01.2014, 24.01.2014, 09.03.2014, 22.11.2014 & 23.11.2014) out of
fourty dates for which demand has been raised by DHBVNL. However,
DHBVNL has submitted that the schedule was not received.
10. The case was subsequently heard on 25.07.2019, 13.09.2019,
23.10.2019, 05.11.2019 and finally on 27.11.2019.
The findings recorded by the Commission.:
11. The Commission has heard the arguments of the ld. counsel for the
appellant and the Respondents and has also gone through the entire
record of the appeal. The following issues arise for consideration and
decision:-
q) Whether Regulation 42 of HERC (Terms & Conditions for grant of
connectivity and open access for intra-State transmission and
distribution system) Regulations, 2012 (HERC OA Regulation), is a
mandatory provision?
r) Whether the Petitioner has complied with the Statutory provision?
s) Whether grant of adjustment by the Respondent Nigam, in respect
of power bought by the Petitioner through Open Access, for
considerable period of time, without the Petitioner following the
provisions of the Statute, constitute implied waiver of the condition
of intimation of day ahead schedule?.
t) Whether the Respondent Nigam suffered any financial loss and was
constrained in planning its power procurement on day to day basis?
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record of the appeal, the findings of the Commission on the issues are as
under:-
Issue (a):
Whether Regulation 42 of HERC (Terms & Conditions for grant of
connectivity and open access for intra-State transmission and
distribution system) Regulations, 2012 (HERC OA Regulation), is a
mandatory provision?
24
The Commission has closely examined the said Regulation as well as the
rival contention on the same. The Commission observes that all the
provisions of the Regulations notified by the Commission in its legislative
capacity, have the force of law behind it. Hence a statute has to be
construed according to the intent of the legislation, as the same, as
reflected in the ‘objectives’ is to make the dispensation effective and
workable. A reading of the said provision i.e. Regulation clause no. 42 &
45 of HERC OA Regulations, establishes the fact that
meaning/interpretation of the said provision is plain & simple and the
same by no stretch of imagination is open to more than one
interpretation, which may require interference of the Commission or any
court of competent jurisdiction to choose the interpretation which
represents the true intent of the said Regulation. Hence, the effect of the
same has to be necessarily given to it irrespective of the consequences.
In view of the above discussion and the case laws cited by the
Respondent, the Commission answers this issue in affirmative i.e.
the requirement under Regulation 42 of the HERC OA Regulations is
mandatory and binding.
Issue (b)
Whether the Petitioner has complied with the Statutory provision?
The Commission has examined the aforesaid issue at length. A perusal of
the impugned Order passed by the Co-ordination Committee dwells at
length the consequences of non-submission/delay in submission of the
day ahead schedule of power purchase through Open Access. Per contra,
the Petitioner has submitted that they had given complete details of the
day ahead schedules by sending emails to IEX, SLDC and the
Distribution Licensee, however, receipt of the same was denied by the
Respondent Nigam. In order to resolve the conflicting position, the
Commission perused the reply filed by the parties pursuant to Interim
Order of the Commission dated 13.09.2019.
The Petitioner in its reply could not submit the requisite details in
respect of five customers viz. (i) Oswal Global, (ii) Vishwakarma, (iii)
Ramco Steels, (iv) Escorts and (v) Studds Accessories. In respect of other
25
customers, on some of the dates petitioner claimed that day ahead
schedule was provided, in some cases schedule was provided a day
earlier than the prescribed day and in some cases the schedule was not
provided at all. The Respondent Discom has submitted that the
adjustment has already been provided for the dates in which they had
received day ahead schedule and for the disputed dates the day ahead
schedule has not been received. During the course of hearing, ld.
Counsel for DHBVNL submitted that prima-facie it appears that the
emails have been forged. However, the Commission has not gone into
merits of the submission of DHBVNL.
However, in order to examine the issue involved in the dates mentioned
in para 9 of the Order i.e. where SLDC has claimed that the emails were
duly received as prescribed under Regulation 42 of HERC OA
Regulations, 2012, the Commission has referred the relevant provisions
of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides as
under:-
“13. Time and place of despatch and receipt of electronic record.– (1) Save as otherwise agreed to between the originator and the addressee,
the despatch of an electronic record occurs when it enters a computer
resource outside the control of the originator.”
submission has claimed that dated 19.10.2019 along with the Affidavit of
even date, reveals that the information was submitted to
IEX/HVPNL/DHBVNL mostly in advance than the dates on which
intimation was required to be submitted. However, the Respondents have
submitted that Petitioner has not provided day ahead schedule by 10
AM, during the disputed period, as prescribed under Regulation 42 of
HERC OA Regulations.
In view of the above, undoubtedly it was mandatory for the
consumer to submit to the distribution licensee a schedule of power
required through open access to the licensee by 10.00 AM of the day
preceding the day of transaction, however, the same was fulfilled
upon the submission of email as per Section 13 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. The obligation of the Petitioner was duly
discharged when the it entered a computer resource outside the
control of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Commission decides that
26
the Petitioner has complied with the requirement of Regulations in
the dates mentioned in para 9 of the Order for which open access
power was disallowed by the UHBVNL/Coordination Committee for
Open Access, as the intimation of drawl of open access was duly
submitted before the time specified in Regulation 42 of HERC OA
Regulations. However, for other dates, the Commission rejects the
arguments of the Petitioner and holds that Petitioner violated the
requirement of the Regulations.
Issue (c)
Whether grant of adjustment by the Respondent Nigam, in respect
of power bought by the Petitioner through Open Access, for
considerable period of time, without the Petitioner following the
provisions of the Statute, constitute implied waiver of the condition
of intimation of day ahead schedule?
The Commission has examined the aforesaid issue at length. The
Commission has taken note of the letter dated 27.12.2013 addressed by
Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (HVPNL) to all the embedded
open access consumers, intimating the revised eligibility criteria for grant
of open access, as per the revised OA Regulations notified on 03rd Dec.,
2013. Upon Notification, the Regulations achieves the status of
subordinate legislation and the public is deemed to have been informed
and cannot claim ignorance of the amendment. The Commission,
therefore, holds that there was a mandatory set of procedure to be
followed by embedded open access consumers and an important part of
which is an obligation cast upon the embedded open access consumers
to submit to the distribution licensee a schedule of power through open
access for all the 96 slots by 10:00 AM of the day preceding the day of
transaction. This being in nature of subordinate legislation, the
Distribution licensee had no power to waive off or modify the
statutory conditions set out in the Regulations in any manner,
whether explicit or implicit. If Act or Regulations mandate to follow
a particular procedure, the same shall have to be adhered to by the
person who desires to avail the benefit under the said Regulations.
27
If consumer does not adhere to the conditions of Open Access
Regulations/Procedure, it has to face the consequences. The
charges are levied as an enforcement measure and not as a penalty
in the strict sense.
In view of the above, the Commission answers the issue framed
above in negative i.e. grant of adjustment by the Respondent Nigam,
in respect of power bought by the Petitioner through Open Access,
for considerable period of time, without the Petitioner following the
provisions of the Statute, does not constitute implied waiver of the
condition of intimation of day ahead schedule.
Issue (d)
Whether the Respondent Nigam suffered any financial loss and was constrained in planning its power procurement on day to day
basis?
The aforesaid query was put forth to the Respondent Nigam. In reply to
the same it has been submitted that “the exact calculation of the losses
attributable to non-intimation of open access by a particular consumer and
resultant profit and loss for sale of equivalent power through exchange /
UI cannot be worked out owing to the complexities and pooling of power in
the grid”
The Commission observes that the Respondent Nigam failed to quantify
the loss in individual case, as well as at an aggregate level. However, the
Commission has taken note of the submission of the Respondent Nigam
that the un-planned energy has gone wasted as on most of the dates
there was under drawl.
In view of the above factual matrix, the Commission answers the
issue in affirmative i.e. the Nigam did suffer some financial loss,
which is difficult to quantify.
Conclusion:-
Having answered the above issues, the Commission is of the considered
view that Regulation 42 of HERC OA Regulations, 2012 being mandatory
in nature has not been strictly followed and complied with by both the
parties from Dec 2013 to Dec 2015. The Petitioner has admitted that the
28
requisite information has not been supplied by him on the correct email
id of DHBVNL before 10 AM of the preceding day. The Respondent
without verifying the said information kept on adjusting the amount for
as long as one year.
The Regulations occupying the field came into existence in 2012 and the
first amendment was notified on 03.12.2013. However, the said
adjustments were being made by the Respondent without taking in
account the amendments which were done in the HERC OA Regulations
on 03.12.2013. It is clear that the present case is basically delayed
implementation of 1st Amendment of HERC OA Regulations, 2012. For
this both the parties are at fault but two wrongs cannot make one right.
As a matter of fact, Regulation 42 & 45 of HERC OA Regulations 2012, is
the mandate of the subordinate Regulations, therefore, this cannot be
waived.
Facing this peculiar situation, this Commission is of the view that a
balanced approach should be taken. The Commission does not want to
enrich the DISCOMS for their own fault nor wants to pass on any
financial losses to the DISCOMS which ultimately have to be passed on
to the consumer at large.
In order to balance the equity on both sides as a one-time measure the
Commission is of the view that present situation is comparable to the
one when Open Access Consumer under draws the power and
unplanned power under drawn by the consumer, flows in to the system.
The procedure for settlement of such power has been specified in the
Regulation 24(2) of the HERC Open Access Regulations (1st Amendment)
Regulations, 2013, as reproduced below:-
“Under drawl by open access consumer: In the event of underdrawl, the consumer
will be paid by the licensee UI charges as notified by CERC for intra-state entities or
lowest tariff as determined by the Commission for the relevant financial year for any
consumer category or power purchase price/sale price contracted by the open access
consumer whichever is lower…………………….xxx. “
However, the said Regulation has a capping of 10% of the entitled drawl
in a time – slot and 5% of the entitled drawl on aggregate basis for all the
96 time-slots in a day.
29
Once the Commission is of the view that the present situation is
similar, in the light of the above discussions, it would be equitable
and just that the Petitioners are granted credit for the purchase of
energy from Power Exchange during the disputed period at the rate
lowest of the UI charges notified by CERC for intra-state entities or
lowest tariff as determined by the Commission for the relevant
financial year for any consumer category or power purchase
price/sale price contracted by the open access consumer without
capping of 5 %/ 10 % as a one time measure.
However, for the dates discussed in para 9 of the Order above, where
the Petitioner has complied with the requirement of Regulations for
which open access power was disallowed by the
UHBVNL/Coordination Committee for Open Access, as the
intimation of drawl of open access was duly submitted before the
time specified in Regulation 42 of HERC OA Regulations. Hence, the
Commission Orders that for these days, as tabulated below, the
Nigam shall give adjustments to the Petitioner considering the same
as power bought under Open Access Mechanism:-
Customer Name Date of intimation Date of open access
transaction
New Allenberry Works 28.04.2014 29.04.2014
Studds Accessories Ltd 11.01.2014 &
29.03.2014
12.01.2014 &
30.03.2014
Vishwakarma Ltd. 10.02.2014 11.02.2014
Escorts 14.01.2014,
24.01.2014, 09.03.2014,
22.11.2014 &
23.11.2014
15.01.2014,
25.01.2014, 10.03.2014,
23.11.2014 &
24.11.2014
The Petitioner, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this
Order, shall submit to DHBVNL, the documentary evidence that it
had purchased the energy through Power Exchange and paid for it.
In case the Petitioner fails to produce the document as evidence,
within the time allowed, then no credit shall be allowed thereafter
by DHBVNL. Further, DHBVNL shall grant necessary adjustment
within 30 days thereafter, failing which, DHBVNL shall be liable to
interest @ 12% p.a. on the adjustment amount due.
30
12. Before parting with the Order, the Commission further directs DHBVNL
to develop a portal within 3 months from the date of receipt of this Order,
where the open access consumer can submit the schedule of power to be
drawn through open access for all the 96 slots by 10:00 AM of the day
preceding the day of transaction. Submission of the schedule on portal
before 10 AM of the preceding day will be deemed to be information duly
supplied in compliance of the HERC Open Access Regulations, 2012, as
amended from time to time.
13. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(D.S. Dhesi) Chairman
(Pravindra Singh Chauhan)
Member
(Naresh Sardana) Member Dated: 17.12.2019
Place: Panchkula